Center for Strategy Research

• 
• Vol 2 Issue 10, October 2006

Hello!

Halloween is upon us, but that’s not the scariest thing in town. No, even more frightening is the possibility of spending good money on research and not getting the information you want!

Read on for this month’s perspective on why hiring industry outsiders as researchers is often the best approach to gathering quality information, cost- effectively.

Please click here to send us your thoughts and comments.

Ghoulishly yours,

Julie Brown President

Mark Palmerino Executive Vice President

The Man Who Knew Too Much

As a market research firm, specializing in qualitative research, it’s our job to conduct lots and lots of interviews. While generally, we manage talented interviewers who conduct these interviews, we also do some ourselves; occasionally we outsource to third parties, and some we simply advise on. The truth is, at any given time, there’s a chance that somewhere in the world, someone is asking someone else a question on our behalf!

During the initial project planning phase with a client — and particularly if the study’s respondents will be senior management types — we are often asked the following question:

“Do the people doing the interviews have experience in the (blank) industry?”

The “blank” may be banking, high tech, pharmaceuticals, consumer packaged goods, or any one of a dozen other industries. Whatever it is, the question behind the question is whether our interviewees know enough to have an intelligent conversation with a high-ranking professional from the industry being surveyed.

Our response, often, is something to the effect of: “Probably less than you may think they need.”

From there, we go on to explain that in our experience, using interviewers who are industry outsiders can contribute to obtaining more accurate information, more efficiently and effectively. And while we (and, sometimes, members of our client team) certainly train our interviewers enough to be aware of key industry trends, to recognize acronyms, to understand industry terminology and to appreciate context, we often deliberately avoid the use of industry veterans.

Here’s why—

1. Industry outsiders don’t bias the outcome. In general, humans listen, understand, follow up, and probe for more information, based on what they already know.

If I’m extremely familiar with your industry and company before the interview begins, I’m much more likely to filter what I hear through my preexisting perspective.

The industry outsider, on the other hand, is a “clean” recipient of information; soaking it up and taking it in as it comes out of the interviewee’s mouth. In this respect, the less I know, the more I hear.

2. Industry outsiders are more cost-effective. Not because they’re paid less, but because they’re better at being efficient, i.e. staying on track.

Although an interview may look like a conversation, if done correctly, it’s anything but. An interview is about gathering the information needed, as quickly and objectively as possible. Unlike a true conversation, it’s not predicated on — nor should it be — an equal give and take between peers.

The problem with expert interviewers, however, is that they have a tendency to prolong the conversation in ways that don’t contribute to the objectives of the interview. They react, reinforce, disagree, show how much they know, and add their own experience-based point of view to the process. This side conversation lengthens the interview, which in turn, increases the cost of the project (or at the very least, increases inefficiency).

3. Industry outsiders obtain more and better information. Great interviewers know how to listen.

Rather than formulating their next comment while the interviewee is speaking, they listen to the responses and from those, pose strong, clarifying, probing questions that expand on the subject.

Here too, lack of a strong opinion allows for more authentic and more effective (i.e. not loaded) questions. When an interviewer truly doesn’t know (and doesn’t think he knows) the answer to the question he’s asking, he’s more likely to wait for the answer and to ask for more if that answer is vague. Interestingly, this genuine probing further reinforces the experience of the respondent, who in turn gives better, more in-depth answers.

The reason NPR’s Terry Gross (for example) can expertly interview politicians, scientists, musicians and others from every conceivable field and industry, is not because she has subject matter expertise in all of these areas. It’s because she knows how to listen and follow-up, and because her status as outsider fuels her curiosity, helping her ask better questions and get better information in the process.

In the end, being an effective interviewer is much more a function of interviewing skills than of subject matter expertise. Yes, interviewers must know enough of the basics to speak intelligently within the framework of a given industry. That said, the best interviewer is the one who has not yet formed a strong opinion.

— Julie